Radio Chatter In YRL!

[Doc]

There is NO WAY IN HELL there won't be a mid-air in YRL in the very near future! The way things are handled on the MF there with FSS passing traffic, and the long winded explanations to pilots about "conflicting" traffic. The general tying up of the frequency so nobody can get a word in is going to result in a catastrophe. Simple things need to be change and addressed. Outside the 5 mile "zone" we NEED to be able to talk directly to other traffic. I realize that "all transmissions must be addressed to the FSS unit....", but this just isn't working! I don't know WHAT the answer is???? But it can't be allowed to carry on like this. WE know where WE are. WE hear the conflicting traffic! If we can't communicate with a conflicting aircraft, one of these days we're going to hit it!!!

I consider the situation in YRL to be one of the most dangerous in the country.

[sstocker31]

Don't complain here.....try complaining to Nav Canada, they are the ones that need to hear you

[lilfssister]

service@navcanada.ca

[slowstream]

Don't complain here.....try complaining to Nav Canada, they are the ones that need to hear you

You're correct of course but honestly good luck with that one............. I guess Nav Canada doesn't know or practise SMS, maybe they didn't get the memo from TC.

Another glaring example of SMS failure

[Rudy]

What's with all the swearing? It's a bit excessive when every other word is shit or an f-bomb or worse. I'm not going to name names or registrations but maybe you could clean it up a bit? I hear him around Cat Lake a lot so maybe they aren't from Red but maybe Savant or Round Lake.

[rigpiggy]

Why do you need to address fss, where in the CAR's does it state this, or is this some manops from navcanada?

[Kzanol]

I definitly agree with this. I've been flying out of Red for few years now and its definitly a recipe for disaster. Its not so bad when you just have the experienced guys flying who know their routes as well as the routes of the float traffic. However when you get these private assholes or weekend warriors who dont know shit Im scared shitless. I feel that alot of conflicts are created with aircraft not following the traffic patterns. (For instance when aircraft join left base patterns onto 26 or right base onto 08). This is a direct violation of not conforming to or avoiding the traffic pattern. Another is only having float traffic outside the zone on 122.8 only. Not proper but trying telling the old school float pilots that. I try to only talk on mf once I have switched and not on 126.7. When outside of the zone I make calls asap and resolve conflicts before inbound aircraft switch on to the mf. However at that instance I am relying on FSS to pass me off to inbound aircraft that switch at the same time. Perhaps VFR routings for float traffic and an ATIS would help relieve the congestion. Also would be nice if they shut down the cochenaur water base as it is not even in the exclusion anyway and is way to fricking close to the airport. Its bullshit to have guys on final for the water while cutting right through short final for 08.

[SAR_YQQ]

While not nearly as busy as Red Lake - the FSS controllers in Kamloops were very similar in their possessiveness over radio comms. In an attempt to deconflict outgoing traffic with inbound traffic (us), I contacted the aircraft directly and told him that if he stayed on the north side of the river, we would stay on the south. Very simple and very safe. FSS radios "Rescue 4## don't talk to other aircraft on my frequency". We were outside his 5 miles, just monitoring his frequency as we were inbound. I find that sort of attitude to be juvenile and an incorrect definition of the CARs/MANOps. I have done the same flying in to Tofino and the controller was more than happy to allow me to assist in traffic deconfliction.

[767]

FSS radios "Rescue 4## don't talk to other aircraft on my frequency".

"Trey Kule" must have been working in that shift as FSS controller.

[medi-whacked]

Maybe each province needs to have a FSS with wannabe controllers. High Level Alberta is right up there with the above
comments. Way too much chat from the flight service specialist.

[DanWEC]

I agree with Kzanol. If it is only the pilots that are familiar with the area in the equation then all would be fine, but between the airport and the bay both on an FSS it seems more than a bit precarious, a time bomb really. Why are there VFR routes for a place like CYQA but not for YRL? Well, the operators and old timers would say you don't need them and they just waste time, and I'd agree, but again, it's not just those high timers flying there- even though their procedures have been working for em for 50 years.

I'd go out on a limb saying if you need experience to be safe in an area, then it's likely on the short side of the safety margin, certainly not unheard of though.

[sky's the limit]

Last year during the August fire flap with upwards of 30 helicopters added to the mix in Red with low vis, it was appalling.

As for an FSS person telling pilots not to talk about conflict resolution on his frequency... That would result in names and supervisor's numbers being taken if it ever happens to me. I do it all the time and it is much more efficient use of airtime. Not sure you can violate one them, but I would most certainly find out...

[iflyforpie]

The trouble with the MF system is has the worst of both controlled and uncontrolled procedures.

High density controlled like ZBB or YBW and (relatively) high density uncontrolled like YCW or YVK work so much better than the mostly sleepy MF airports when they all of a sudden get saturated with students, weekend warriors, fire traffic, or other traffic in the zone that isn't conforming to procedures (ie landing on a nearby lake or helipad).

The transfer of information through the middle man is doggedly slow, and I can see some of the frustration the FSS personal have as well since many of them used to be running towers at MF airports.

In addition to FSS shortening their stories, pilots can also help by monitoring the frequency before start up or well before entering the zone so they are aware of traffic and numbers and then say on initial call up that they have the numbers and traffic to avoid repetition on the part of the FSS.

[Doc]

This happened just this past week, but it happens all the time ay YRL. There are 7 airplanes in, approaching, of leaving the "zone" Every time a pilot communicated with FSS, FSS relayed the entire conversation to the 6 other airplanes, requiring 6 transmissions. Then, somebody else would make a call, and the whole business repeated itself.
This trying to "control" an airport, and the area around it, without radar, by an FSS unit 100 miles away just doesn't work. I consider it to be unsafe. It's not a "shot" at the FSS unit, they're doing what they're told/taught to do, it just doesn't work. There will be an accident here unless something changes.
In future, on good VFR days, I plan max performance climbs on runway heading, and arrivals overhead, clear of the zone from above, getting the "picture" before I descend.
Last time I was there, we were literally performing evasive manoeuvres to avoid traffic on our TCAS that we couldn't talk to, and were not informed off.

A big part of it is the FSS guy knowing when to "monitor" the situation, and let the pilots sort it out when it get out of hand. Sometimes there just isn't time to safely use a middleman. Sometimes we need to communicate with each other NOW. SMS? Perhaps it's time to give it a try?

[W0XOF]

While not nearly as busy as Red Lake - the FSS controllers in Kamloops were very similar in their possessiveness over radio comms. In an attempt to deconflict outgoing traffic with inbound traffic (us), I contacted the aircraft directly and told him that if he stayed on the north side of the river, we would stay on the south. Very simple and very safe. FSS radios "Rescue 4## don't talk to other aircraft on my frequency". We were outside his 5 miles, just monitoring his frequency as we were inbound. I find that sort of attitude to be juvenile and an incorrect definition of the CARs/MANOps. I have done the same flying in to Tofino and the controller was more than happy to allow me to assist in traffic deconfliction.

I edited my original reply, as I see this type of thread has come up before and was beaten to death. The above complaint I see was risen from the dead from a 2008 post. Gotta move on bro.

Anyhow, I found somebody else's post which contains a reply from TC as far as directing comms to the ground station (FSS). Of course an out is included, but it seems pretty clear as a general rule.

"How about instead of everyone forming their own opinion, we all find out what those in charge have to say:

Dear sir,
Thank you for your recent email (see below) received at the Transport Canada Civil Aviation Communications Centre.
In response, CAR 602.98 states the following:
General MF Reporting Requirements
602.98 (1) Every report made pursuant to this Division shall be made on the mandatory frequency that has been specified for use in the applicable MF area.
(2) Every report referred to in subsection (1) shall be
(a) directed to the ground station associated with the MF area, if a ground station exists and is in operation; or
(b) broadcast, if a ground station does not exist or is not in operation.
Therefore Transport Canada's interpretation is that while in Mandatory Frequency (MF) airspace all communications will be directed to the ground station, when it exists. This allows the FSS to maintain situational awareness and manage the communications. These ground stations may also include, for example, an RCO through which a RAAS is provided, a CARS, an airport radio (APRT RDO) or an approach UNICOM (AU).
It is important to note that selected short duration air-to-air communications during periods of low traffic volume should not cause unsafe congestion to the radio frequency. However, pilots may be reminded, as required, that radiocommunications should be restricted to those relating to safety and flight regularity and that in accordance with section 32.(1) of the Radiocommunication Regulations, superfluous communication as well as profane and obscene language is strictly prohibited.
Thank you for taking the time to contact us. I trust this information will be of assistance to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us again should you require further information or assistance.
Kind regards,
Véronique Shinder
Information Officer / Agente d'Information
Civil Aviation Communication Centre /
Centre de Communications de l'Aviation Civile
1 800-305-2059 / 613-993-1720
Facsimile / Télécopieur 613-957-4208
CommCentre2@tc.gc.ca
Transport Canada / Place de Ville AARC), Ottawa ON K1A 0N5
Transports Canada / Place de Ville (AARC), Ottawa ON K1A 0N5
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/menu"

[MacStork]

Great post ..... and this kind of conflict happens all over the world. In the Maldives, when the weather was very marginal and several aircraft, all with minimum fuel, were trying to get into the float base in Male, we had to have direct voice contact with the other aircraft to avoid serious and dangerous conflict. There were times when the pilots had to deal the controller out of the equation to maintain safe separation in poor VMC conditions. It worked and the controllers understood what was happening and complied. There were no complaints or no threats of violations. Just professional courtesy, and common sense prevailed. Today they have an efficient ATC system that provides safe separation to IFR and VFR aircraft. But ..... that is in the Maldives.

[icewa]

I rarely did this in YRL, but everytime I went into YXL and it was busy, after my initial callup to establish radio comms, my second call would be "I have this guy 25nm N of airport at 45, this guy 10 NE at 25, twin just departed northbound" and if the call was correct YXL would say something like "that's correct call me where ever".

Shaved tons of time off the radio, and I guess it meets their requirement of passing all relevant traffic, but you have to monitor the freq and have him say all that to someone first to find out.

[SAR_YQQ]

The above complaint I see was risen from the dead from a 2008 post. Gotta move on bro.

Hey WOXOF, thanks for doing a search on a necro topic and bringing it to light.

When you have a conversation with someone in the present, do you stop expressing your opinion/commentary when you realized that you mentioned that same tidbit of information to another group of people 4 years earlier? So what if I brought up my experience, it wasn't a rant, it was simply an comment that shows the situation in Red Lake is not new nor is it specific to that locale. It's called communicating on a higher level. Thanks for joining in the conversation.

If and when I head back to that area of North America, I'll be sure to be a little more in the know when it comes to dealing with the controllers.

[floats4fun]

On the subject of radio calls....perimeter needs to go....

[Doc]

On the subject of radio calls....perimeter needs to go....

Used to find them irritating. Now I just point and giggle in their general direction. Their calls, while most times unnecessary, have no negative as far as safety is concerned.

[Doc]

WOXOF, correct me if I'm wrong. The "required" MF calls are 1, five minutes prior to entering the MF area. 2, Entering the zone. 3, when turning final. 4, down and clear of the active. These are the calls that are required to be directed at/to the FSS unit.
Did I miss any?
FSS is there in an advisory capacity? Or, to "control" aircraft?
A pilot's biggest responsibility, under VFR is to see and avoid other traffic. Or, is that the responsibility of an FSS unit? This being said, wouldn't it make sense for two aircraft to directly communicate with each other ANYWHERE, at ANYTIME, to maintain visual separation between each other if required? I've had to suck up the gear and flaps and get the F out of the zone due to traffic I couldn't talk to on more than a couple of occasions. This should never happen. In my book (and it's a thick book) this represents a dangerous situation.
Cheers

[W0XOF]

Doc, you were close on the mandatory calls. CAR's provides that. You, being a pilot should know what they are. I'm not going to post them. You missed an inbound call, transiting calls and all the outbound calls.

I don't know why you're trying to convince me of what makes sense and what doesn't for 2 reasons. First, I never gave my personal or professional thoughts in this thread, that was a quote of another members post containing the regulators interpretation. Appears you should take issue with TC then. Second, I don't agree with you, because I have been giving advisories at various sites for 16 years and I know what works and what doesn't at busy and complex aerodromes (by FSS standards anyways) with onsite services. I do it for a living. I can't speak for YRL and won't even try.

The FSS's job is to provide traffic advisories and provide conflict resolution. No, not through control. First, by providing a clear traffic picture. If I can do that with a point out or precise info from radar, looking out the window etc., nine times out of ten the pilot will come back with a proper course of action. If not, a proper course of action will then be suggested in the form of "Can you............". If you are unaware of the FSS's job, maybe that's why you have so many issues.

SAR_YQQ: What I had originally posted and edited was that the 442 Squadron has always been one of the worst offenders of broadcasting and air to air chatting, and generally being unaware of MF procedures with a ground station in operation. Not sure why you would think that you can sort out traffic more efficiently at an airport that you probably fly into 5 times a year instead of the FSS who works there everyday and most likely for several years.

[flyinhigh]

Simple solution that I have done and the Fss folks will do.

YRL is a perfect example and I have done it there, if you are in conflict, talk direct to Fss, tell them in a nice way this is a issue and to not talk until resolved. When it is resolved let the Fss know this and than continue normal ops.

I know I will get slagged by Fss guys for this but quite frankly my life is worthier than the CARS.

[CLguy]

Well Doc it's not like TC is not aware of the problem. As we know it is only a matter of time. Too bad it is going to take some deaths before something gets done. Then of course we will hear the usual, we are looking into it and going to make the necessary changes to ensure that this kind of thing never happens again ..... blah, blah, blah.

Wait til Confederation College moves their float training program to Red Lake next spring and adds even more confusion and congestion.

[2R]

Most pilots have two ears and one mouth.
If they used the ears as much as the mouth then the radio calls could be cut down.What a joy it must be for the FSS to hear that pilot has been listening to the MF frequency and is fully aware of the traffic and runway in use.The FSS must jump for joy when they hear "GOT THE TRAFFIC AND NUMBERS"
Saving the FSS from having to repeat what they just said twenty seconds ago.
To enhance safety pilots should be listening to the airport frequency that they are inbound to,not yaking on up a nickel,guns,company,GPA or gossip radio frequencies until final.
Use the ears get the picture and try to fit in as safe and COURTEOUS as possible.
Be nice or ELSE
The FSS must be super nice cause if i had just gave a huge traffic and airport advisory and some muppet came on the radio six miles out wanting an airport advisory twenty seconds later i would might say "SAY AGAIN YOU ARE COMING IN STUPID"